If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

^not surprising, Trudeau family is catholic (you won't see Justin talking out against catholic schools). I think the US constituion is about the only non-secular one there is. Its interesting, many of the people on here who get upset about the religion in issues like schools, are in essence arguing for US laws / style of government.

I personally have no issue with actual religion in schools. Just the discrimination evident in them. I would prefer a public system only that has room for religion such as some public rural schools kinda unofficially do. Classes should be set up so a break is allowed for islamic students as well. And for catholics/christians allow time for their prey times as well. I belive an inclusive system can be allowed and followed that does not discriminate agaist freedom of religion but at the same time allowes no discrimination.

I have to laugh at anyone who suggests that American school systems are a better model and that there is a separation of Church and State in the USA. One look at the abortion debate that rages on fervently in the US compared to Canada where it is almost a non-issue here, clearly shows that the US is mired in religious issues. Just experience visiting the US bible belt and you step back 50+ years compared to Canada.

We are a lot more open minded and accepting of others ethnic, religious and social economic plight than the US. If you think schools and religious oppression are so bad here, try moving to Missouri or Georgia. Separation of Church and State is a fallacy in many US regions and discrimination is rampant.

Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 05-01-2015 at 07:12 AM.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

There is no more discrimination in Catholic schools than there is in Public schools. As a matter of fact, in the separate schools, there is more freedom to talk about religion, where as in public schools it is very much frowned upon. Catholic and non catholic can work in both separate and public systems. It is preferred that a teacher is catholic but it is not a requirement.

There is no more discrimination in Catholic schools than there is in Public schools. As a matter of fact, in the separate schools, there is more freedom to talk about religion, where as in public schools it is very much frowned upon. Catholic and non catholic can work in both separate and public systems. It is preferred that a teacher is catholic but it is not a requirement.

Unfortunately it is effective requirement when you have around 10,000 underemployed and unemployed people in Alberta trained as teachers. i was not allowed to even send my CV in to catholic school boards without a letter of faith from a priest.

There is no separation of church and state in Canada. Read the first sentence of the Charter, please. The one that starts with "Whereas" and ends with "the supremacy of God and the rule of law".

Like it or not.

Show me one Supreme Court decision that cites "the supremacy of God", and I'll agree.

The Supreme Court interprets the charter, they don't write it, some religious nuts under an older Trudeau did that. Unfortunatley, we are stuck with it, even if the Supreme Court wants to pretend the words aren't there / can be ignored.

The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the introductory sentence to the Constitution of Canada's Charter of Rights and Constitution Act, 1982. In full, it reads,

“ Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law"

Yeah, the Preamble kinda falls apart & is actively contradicted by the Section Two, which is why it has zero actual clout & should be removed for clarity & equality.

Wanna get 10 Premiers together just for that?

BTW, last time I looked at the separation of Church and State in the good ol'USA, everyone carries these.

"In God We Trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto of E pluribus unum, which was adopted when the Great Seal of the United States was created and adopted in 1782.

"In God we trust" first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864 and has appeared on paper currency since 1957. Some secularists and noodle object to its use.

Controversy
Those who advocate the separation of church and state have questioned the legality of this motto, asserting that it violates the United States Constitution, which forbids the government from passing any law respecting the establishment of religion. Religious accommodationists state that this entrenched practice has not historically presented any constitutional difficulty, is not coercive, and does not prefer one religious denomination over another.

"In God we trust" as a national motto and on U.S. currency has been the subject of multiple unsuccessful lawsuits. The motto was first challenged in Aronow v. United States in 1970, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." The decision was cited in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a 2004 case on the Pledge of Allegiance. These acts of "ceremonial deism" are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content." In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), the Supreme Court also held that the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and that government recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of a state church as the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit.

Outside of constitutional objections, President Theodore Roosevelt took issue with placing the motto on coinage as he considered it sacrilegious to put the name of God on money.

Nobody cares because it's meaningless claptrap & the separation of church & state is entrenched in their Constitution.

In Canada it matters because theists (such as yourself) keep trying to force people to obey their particular brand of spiritual woowoo & continued governmental discrimination towards those of other beliefs.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making. Secular Humanism is not a religion. Humanists don't worship anything. To a Secular Humanist, Religious Humanism is an oxymoron

And as to your ridiculous over-simplification of the origins of life, perhaps you should have spent more time in Physics class and less time trying to eke favours out of a zombie carpenter who's his own dad. Because that makes perfect sense.

The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Check out my fellow Christian, Dr Don Page at the UofA who studies the cosmos and discusses the age of the universe with his associate, Stephen Hawkins and even edits his books and corrects his theories.

Just because we are Christian, does not mean we don't believe in modern sciences.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Right. A giant leap by you trying to suggest that I am biased and you are not???

I thought Humanists are supposed to be nice people who use reason rather than prejuding people and slamming their beliefs while attempting character assignations of people you barely know and never met in person.

'Do unto others' I guess does not apply to your brand of Humanist.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Actually, while not directly challenged, it's been recognized as being a bit incongruent to freedom & democracy:

Supreme Court Justice Wilson, in R. v. Morgentaler, hinted that the supremacy of God stands in conflict with a free and democratic society, noting that while she was “not unmindful of the fact that the Charter opens with an affirmation that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God””, she was “also mindful that the values entrenched in the Charter are those which characterize a free and democratic society.” Thus, the underlying assumption seems to be that the supremacy of God stands in opposition to freedom and democracy.

Actually, while not directly challenged, it's been recognized as being a bit incongruent to freedom & democracy:

Supreme Court Justice Wilson, in R. v. Morgentaler, hinted that the supremacy of God stands in conflict with a free and democratic society, noting that while she was “not unmindful of the fact that the Charter opens with an affirmation that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God””, she was “also mindful that the values entrenched in the Charter are those which characterize a free and democratic society.” Thus, the underlying assumption seems to be that the supremacy of God stands in opposition to freedom and democracy.

As I've argued on the religion and theism thread - I think it's irrational to believe that God doesn't exist. It's also equally irrational to believe God does exists. We can come up with all kinds of indirect evidence pointing in one direction or another but we're a long way from 'knowing' whether or not God exists. So I see no problem declaring the supremacy of God. However, adopting one spin one way or another as to what God wants for us (should it even exist) is beyond our current comprehension. So how there be any incompatibility with democracy and rights when we know nothing about God, and only know about the many religions created, ostensibly, in God's name?.

As I've argued on the religion and theism thread - I think it's irrational to believe that God doesn't exist. It's also equally irrational to believe God does exists. We can come up with all kinds of indirect evidence pointing in one direction or another but we're a long way from 'knowing' whether or not God exists.

Please, illuminate me, what indirect, rational evidence do we have to support theists?

Originally Posted by KC

So I see no problem declaring the supremacy of God.

Of course you don't, because this statement is compatible with your Agnostic belief system. However, belief systems are not universal & as this document & the rights it enshrines are, there's a incongruence.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

It has been proven that Alberta has one of, if not the finest education system in the world followed closely by Ontario that also has a two school system.

Now if you desire to change the status quo, the first thing you must do is show that there is a reason to do so. You have to provide factual and verifiable information, not just bashing the system on hearsay. Past issues with Catholic Priest scandal and residential schools are not the focus of the debate on this thread. Sexual abuse is more pervasive in the Catholic Church than in other institutions.

Demonstrate that a two school system is not as efficient in providing a quality education.

Demonstrate that the cost per student is higher than another jurisdiction that provides the same quality of education, equivalent student achievements and has similar teacher salaries & benefits.

Demonstrate that there are prevalent* and systemic discrimination including actual cases that have gone to the Alberta Human Rights Commission and have been ruled against the Separate School Board. (* not singular cases)

Demonstrate that the RCC exerts too much influence and the separate school system and significantly harms many students.

Demonstrate that other jurisdictions where they eliminated religious based public funded schools had significant improvements in education and/or cost reduction

Also, if you want to dissolve the religious schools and post secondary education facilities in Alberta, you must also consider dissolving the many Catholic hospitals in Alberta and there are all sorts of publicly funded religious based hospitals across Canada that do not discriminate on religious grounds.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

I'll do that right after you explain how elevating one belief structure over all others is appropriate in a system that guarantees equal rights.

It's about equality for all people, of all belief structures, under the law.

That's it. That's all I want. Equality, for all people, regardless of beliefs, as is guaranteed to me by the Charter of Rights & Freedoms. Administrative savings & removal of redundancies are a fantastic, but fringe, benefit of doing away with government funded proselytizing.

That's it. You're vehemently against equality, which is definitely your prerogative, even if it's a bit of a backwards mindset.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

You are a self professed Humanist and that is your right. Is anyone oppressing you? Do you have the same legal rights?

It can be argued that getting rid of Separate Schools oppresses the religious rights of Catholics. I am not a Catholic but I do respect their rights and I also respect the rights of Jewish institutions, Muslim institutions and other religious institutions. I also respect the rights of atheists, agnostics, the LGBT communities and civil libertarians.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.

It oppresses the rights of Catholics by making them exactly the same as everyone else!? Somehow, not being special is oppressive? Really? You honestly think that treating everyone equally oppresses those who were previously special?

What's so oppressive about being treated like everyone else?

I'm not advocating the removal of religious options for education. I'm advocating that funds, collected indiscriminately from the general populace via taxation do not go to discriminatory institutions. That's it. That's the whole thread topic.

I know it's already been covered I'm not f'ng Helen Keller. I'm just reiterating it. It's hard to have freedom from religion if it is written into the charter. Cripes, are you in some kind of snit or what?.

I get that following links & critical thinking aren't everyone's cup of tea, but if you're going to wade into a discussion, perhaps it might be a good idea to be caught up to the current state of things, rather than repost & rehash points based upon your own shallow understanding of deeper issues. Heaven forfend I want the conversation to move forward & not around & around & around the same hackneyed, poorly stated points.

But just to make sure it's in the thread so it has a scant chance of being incorporated into the conversation, once again, from here:

Myth:You have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

Response:
This claim is common, but it rests on a misunderstanding of what real freedom of religion entails. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.

As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

^Well remember that next time somebody else posts. Their opinion is just as valid as yours. It's not just a forum for your opinion or you would be arguing with yourself.

No, not all opinions are equally valid. An opinion is "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

If everyone's opinions were equally valid, why not go see your plumber the next time you break your arm? Why do we get expert testimony in court cases, why not just pull in whatever guy they can get off the street?

Oh.

Wait.

Because not all opinions are equally valid. Those that are based upon fact or knowledge are more valid than those based upon supposition & untruths. As you clearly don't seem to have the knowledge or understanding that "freedom of religion" is a concept that includes "freedom from religion", your opinion on the matter isn't really relevant at all.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

^Oh I see. Now your the resident expert on theology. If you care to look back in this thread I was the first one to mention 'freedom from religion' which you seem to be quoting so fondly now. Go ahead look and please try to keep up.

Actually the freedoms of religion dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215 which is still the basis of modern law and our government institutions.

I guess noodle wants to tear that up too.

Wow, that's some leap. That's gotta be the most hilarious thing I've seen posted. That's one heckuva slippery slope fallacy.

I don't want to rip up the Magna Carta. I'm not advocating the removal of religious freedom. I'm advocating that funds, collected indiscriminately from the general populace via taxation do not go to discriminatory institutions. I've stated this, over & over, repeatedly. That's my entire position on this matter. That's it.

Why shouldn't Catholics be treated the same as Muslims? Or Lutherans? Or Anglicans? Or Buddhists? Or Hindus? Baptists? Seventh Day Adventists? Mormons?

You are free to believe whatever the heck you want. Go nuts. Just pay for your proselytizing yourself.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

^Oh I see. Now your the resident expert on theology. If you care to look back in this thread I was the first one to mention 'freedom from religion' which you seem to be quoting so fondly now. Go ahead look and please try to keep up.

Nope, not an expert in theology. Just tired of people spouting ignorant, half-informed information like it's fact under the shoddy guise of "it's my opinion" like that makes their inaccurate statements invulnerable from criticism.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Nope, not an expert in theology. Just tired of people spouting ignorant, half-informed information like it's fact under the shoddy guise of "it's my opinion" like that makes their inaccurate statements invulnerable from criticism.

Then why do you keep talking???

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

^^You know, if you have read my posts on this thread I don't believe in a two tier school system either. If people want to be taught whatever religion they follow it should be done at home or their place of worship. The schools should be responsible for teaching the basic foundation of each religion but should not have it as a basis for that schools being. I have seen some 10 year old studies posted on this thread that state Alberta has one of the better education systems in the world. It's a big world and that would not be hard when you compare how much of the world is poverty stricken. I also posted this (below) website that is more detailed and up to date on just how Alberta's education system fares with the rest of Canada. It's not as rosy as some people think. Then again, people are going to cherry pick what ever they want from the article.

Having said that. I have not screamed like a constipated moose that my opinion is better than anyone else's. I realize that people's who's opinion differ from mine can be just as vocal. It does not mean that it is any less valuable.

I'm advocating that funds, collected indiscriminately from the general populace via taxation do not go to discriminatory institutions. I've stated this, over & over, repeatedly. That's my entire position on this matter. That's it.

And that is where you are fundamentally WRONG. School taxes are NOT "collected indiscriminately from the general populace". By default, all school taxes are directed to the public school system. Only by choosing the option to direct a portion of your taxes to the seperate school system and enroling your children in them , are tax dollars used to support them. Students are equally funded on a per seat basis. This is a directed funding method that is a representative taxation system that literally is voted on annually by the population that is more democratic than the only 28% of the population that voted for the Conservative goverment which picked their leader only by a vote that is only available to party members and we are stuck with this choice for 5 years.

if the seperate school system was not supported by direct and deliberte choices done by taxpayers, the seperate school system would lose all its funding next year and be forced to amalgamate with the public system.

I'm advocating that funds, collected indiscriminately from the general populace via taxation do not go to discriminatory institutions. I've stated this, over & over, repeatedly. That's my entire position on this matter. That's it.

And that is where you are fundamentally WRONG. School taxes are NOT "collected indiscriminately from the general populace". By default, all school taxes are directed to the public school system. Only by choosing the option to direct a portion of your taxes to the seperate school system and enroling your children in them , are tax dollars used to support them. Students are equally funded on a per seat basis. This is a directed funding method that is a representative taxation system that literally is voted on annually by the population that is more democratic than the only 28% of the population that voted for the Conservative goverment which picked their leader only by a vote that is only available to party members and we are stuck with this choice for 5 years.

if the seperate school system was not supported by direct and deliberte choices done by taxpayers, the seperate school system would lose all its funding next year and be forced to amalgamate with the public system.

"Concordia High School is Alberta's only international boarding school. Founded in 1921, CHS is celebrating its 90th academic year in the fall of 2011 by moving to a new southwest Edmonton campus for growth and expansion. New educational initiatives include AP curriculum in 14 subjects, international student exchanges, small class size, award winning teachers, faith based learning in a Christian environment, interscholastic sports, digital media club, award winning Cappies program, Registered Apprenticeship and Work Experience programs (for credit), leadership opportunities and more."

Yeah, I thought that they'd shut it down. However, whether it exists today or not, is not the point. The fact seems to be that alternative demand/choice can exist for long periods of time and whether or not the public system matches those demands/choices via a competitive or inclusive response is what matters. A one size fits all approach often fails people on the fringes.

The Fallacy of a “One Size Fits All” Education

This personal narrative by a profoundly gifted student, 14, that reflects on his educational journey and observations of radical acceleration.

“One size fits all” is a ridiculous statement. Everybody is unique in his or her own special way, so one size couldn’t possibly work for every person. In education however, public schools have to group kids together to get them through school in a somewhat efficient manner. Public schools clump kids based on age, but that doesn’t work for everybody. Public schools will provide some extra help for a below average student with special needs. But what about the other side of the spectrum? Do the smart kids need anything special? The generally accepted answer is “No” because people believe that smart people can take care of themselves. However, that is not the case.
...http://www.davidsongifted.org/Search...e/entry/A10507

In 2014, One Size Didn't Fit All
Kids were fed an alphabet soup of uniform standards and tests, and no one was happy about it.
d “test.” “Standards” (and its equally unpopular cousin “standardized”) didn’t fare too hot, either. The terms paired together, and all hell broke loose—at least in education circles. And in concerned-parent circles. And among activists and lobbyists who’ve increasingly framed the issue as a key example of what’s wrong with public education—and the role government strives to play in shaping it
...

The resentment clearly isn’t limited to teachers. And it essentially boils down to this premise: Education is suffering because schools are becoming homogenized at the hands of policymakers who don’t have a real clue about or genuine interest in the realities of classrooms, an epidemic exacerbated by over-testing. Hence, the increased movement among parents for greater choice when it comes to their kids’ schooling and this year’s across-the-board backlash against one-size-fits-all education.

Around 40% of new schools being built are Catholic while only a quarter of the population are Catholic and less than that direct their education taxes to Catholic boards. In St. Albert a new Catholic school is being built while enrolment is falling. In Edmonton 17% of tax payers direct their education tax to the Catholic board. I would think we should stop building new Catholic schools until at least 80% of the schools are part of the public board.

In St. Albert, in the 5 years from 2012 to 2017, the population has grown by around 3,500 people – or 7% to 65,000.The Public school district has seen student growth of almost 20%, from over 6,500 to almost 7,800 in that same period.
Yet in that same timeframe, in a period of significant population growth for the City of St. Albert, Catholic school enrolment in the city has DROPPED.
From 4128 in 2013 to 3632 in 2017, enrolment in Catholic schools actually fell by almost 500 students, or 12%.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

I don't see why there is such a resistance to having one school system throughout all Alberta. Probably like implementing a provincial sales tax. If a party does it they think it will be political suicide. If people want their kids to be taught their religion it should be done in churches/mosques/temples etc.

In case you're not aware, a social movement is underway — led by many prominent Albertans — to abolish Alberta's duplicate, wasteful and exclusive Catholic school system.

If you're already aware of the many reasons to join the other seven provinces who have long ago abolished publicly funded faith-based schools systems (e.g. Quebec, Nfld/Labrador, etc.), then please signal your support and sign our petition for a provincial referendum: http://www.ouridea.ca/referendum

And if you're not up-to-date on this elephant-in-the-room issue, I invite you to read some of the blog articles from David King, Alberta's former education minister: http://www.ouridea.ca/blog

We now have 3,000 passionate members across Alberta (including many Catholics and leaders in the Catholic community who understand that religious entitlement is a wasteful injustice that is taking money away from classrooms.